Talk:Bloomberg Terminal

Comments
I do not want to access Bloomberg over the internet, but to provide a dedicated line for my users. Can anybody tell me what dedicated bandwidth would be required to run Bloomberg terminals for 4 users?
 * Why are you asking on a wikipedia discussion page. Call up Bloomberg's sales dept. Or look on their web page

-- Almost all Bloomberg access is provided via leased lines direct to the Bloomberg network and not over the internet. I think there is a minimum of 2meg .. but Call Bloomberg sales the number is on their website ...

I really can't believe that people still buy this overpriced shit. Getting data via http://www.interactivedata.com/ is much cheaper.

-- I cant believe someone would post such an opinion on a wikipedia discussion page how is that relevant..


 * How old is this technology? When was it introduced? Drutt 09:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of it dates back to the late eighties, and the code and architecture still bears signs of it's Perkin Elmer roots. It's moved to a mixture of large Sun and IBM Unix servers now. There are tens of millions of lines of code, much is Fortran and C, though almost all new development is done is C++ and has been for some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomalpha (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I worked for the losing vendor at the time (1983 or 1984), Digital Equipment, and thought then, don't they know that Interdata-Perkin Elmer was about to exit the computer business with the spinoff called Concurrent Computer Corporation? Of course, Digital itself merged with Compaq in 1998. patsw (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The keyboard svg image is excellent work, but the letters should be centered in the keys. Unfortunately, I'm not graphics-savvy enough to make that change myself, or I would. I'm leaving this comment here, because I was unable to leave it on the wikimedia page. VTPG (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.189.234 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

costs?
how much is a standard bloomberg terminal appr.? --90.152.137.245 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I just posed this question at Talk:Bloomberg L.P.... --84.20.185.61 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is around about $1,500 a month. If you want the Trading System as well, you need five terminals and an extra $200,000 a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.203.254 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. For sales and pricing information I recommend you contact Bloomberg directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.86 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The cost information in the article is out of date. The current price is $2,000/mo qty. 1 . I suggest the article be updated with accurate pricing data, but don't have the qty. breaks to do it myself. ErikTownsend (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

API
I made some small changes to improve the quality of writing/information in the API section of the article. I've posted on WP:COIN noting my WP:COI. If anyone believes the edits to have WP:NPOV issues, please let me know! - Andrewmp (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bloomberg Terminal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022082539/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/01_17/b3729001.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_17/b3729001.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512182932/http://www.openbloomberg.com:80/open-api/ to http://www.openbloomberg.com/open-api/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

iUniverse
Concerning the book published by iUniverse, this same source had been used in the Michael Bloomberg article, and while a better source may be preferable, surely a weak source is better than no source at all. Would you allow me to restore the content with self-published source until a better source can be found? --Bsherr (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's an argument for removing it from the other article, not including it here. Vanity presses are not appropriate sources. Especially on an article like the one on Bloomberg himself, which is a WP:BLP. Guy (help!) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the source is appropriate. But I can't simply remove the source and leave the information I am copying from Michael Bloomberg, because that would be plagiarism. I'm only suggesting that an inappropriate source is better than no source, and that it would be better to tag it than to leave the status quo, which is statements with no sourcing at all in a BLP article. Isn't the latter worse? --Bsherr (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Trusting you're willing to be patient, I've restored it, and will work to find a better source. --Bsherr (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)